Jean-Pierre Dion wrote:
Hi all,
we already discussed during the conf calls what
benchmarks should be ran on ext4.
As we have OLS paper on the table we were thinking
here at Bull what bench t run and on which kernel.
If we want trying to compare ext3 and ext4, I guess we
should at least show that :
- ext4 has equivalent perfs than ext3,
Define equivalent performance.
Are the workloads only going to be focused on single repetitive
operations or simulation of actual desktop/server environments? How
about performance on an aged filesystem?
- improvements done for ext3 are still in ext4 (mb alloc, del alloc...).
So we were wondering what's best to do :
- run on 2.6.19 (includes del alloc and mb alloc if I am not wrong),
- run on 2.6.20 (lacks mb alloc),
What about system configurations? While a desktop configuration would
be easy to come by, a server configuration needs a bit more thought.
Will ext4 perform better than ext3 in a wide range of storage
configuration that scale from a couple thousands IOPS to several hundred
thousand IOPS?
Having baseline data on other filesystems like XFS or JFS would be
interesting as well to see how well ext4 stacks up to the competition. :)
- select relevant benchs (iozone...).
I haven checked IOzone in quite a bit but last time I checked FFSB had a
couple of capabilities that are not available in IOzone like multi
threading on a shared data set and a very customizable IO operations to
attempt to simulate real IO patterns seen on workloads. Might be worth
a look if your interested in compiling a very comprehensive set of results
What do you think ?
Thanks.
jean-pierre
-JRS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
